Lake Pocotopaug Commission
Special Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2007
Town Hall Annex
Minutes
Call to Order & Roll Call
Chairman Hart called the Lake Pocotopaug Commission to order at 6:31 PM.
Members Present: Chairman Bob Hart, Vice Chairman John Ciriello, Irene Curtis (6:41), John Jordan, Jack Solomon, and Tom Wells.
Others Present: Dr. Ken Wagner ENSR, Chuck Lee DEP, Alan Bergren Town Manager, Dennis Griswold, Gladys Yeager, Nancy Flannery, Paul Angelico, Kamey Ahrens Recording Secretary, other members of the public.
Public Remarks:
Dennis Griswold, Chairman of the Friends of Lake Pocotopaug Commission stated there are several members of their commission present for tonight’s meeting and they are excited to hear Dr. Wagner’s comments on the lake.
Chairman Hart opened the meeting with the introduction of Dr. Wagner and Chuck Lee. Dr. Ken Wagner has written many studies over the years on the lake. We would like to discuss with Dr. Wagner on our work moving forward.
3. Dr. Ken Wagner, ENSR International
A. Monitoring Program
Jack Solomon asked Dr. Wagner what he felt made sense on both a monitoring program and other issues that ENSR might recommend. Dr. Wagner responded there has been a lot of monitoring done on the lake. Moving forward there needs to be storm water management. There was discussion on the phosphorus use on the lake. John Jordan asked about the soils around the lake. Dr. Wagner replied there is no blanket statement that can be made on the lake, there are plenty of hints, and however it all seems to be an issue. Chairman Hart asked about Skyline Estates water going through a wetland? Dr. Wagner stated that most of Skyline Estates goes through a series of storm water filters before it is released to a brook which then goes to the lake, and Skyline Estates represents the closest thing to a state of the art in the watershed doing
something that has the least possible impact. You can not development anything and not expect some kind of an impact. Chairman Hart asked about prioritizing different parts of the watershed? Dr. Wagner stated they have attempted to do that, however there is a lot of data that should continue to be collected. John Ciriello asked about the plant life in Lake Pocotopaug. Dr. Wagner stated there has not been a detailed study of the plant life in the lake, but gave a generalization of the plant life in lakes and streams. Irene Curtis asked about any benefit to an annual draw down on the lake. Dr. Wagner replied a draw down is a useful technique but the impacts are greater and not a benefit for this lake. Alan Bergren discussed the monitoring program in addition to the $50,000 grant some of which can be used for monitoring. Currently there is no monitoring contract with Dr. Wagner. Jack Solomon stated although the lake commission will do a lot of the work, they would like his assistance.
Dr. Wagner provided the commission with the direction they needed to go in order to obtain the storm water sampling and how to move forward with testing and the monitoring program needed to be in place in order to move towards the Lake Pocotopaug Commissions goals and where their focus should be.
B. Contract between ENSR and East Hampton
The Commission disused with Dr. Wagner and Chuck Lee the expenses for testing and the options for future testing in the watershed. The Commission stated they have a $50,000 grant from the state in addition to possibly holding an additional $50,000 for solutions (not testing) from the Friends of Lake Pocotopaug to assist. There was discussion on the costs for Dr. Wagner and Chuck Lee to move forward with writing the report and how to move forward to improve the lake. This is going to be a planning tool for the parties involved. Mr. Lee indicated that there are grant funds available from the EPA Clean Water Act 303D program. Mr. Lee explained the phases of obtaining the federal money, in addition to the disbursement of the current money in place. DEP will then enter into a contract with East Hampton and then ESNR. John
Ciriello asked about the time line for the report. Mr. Lee stated it will take longer to have it approve then it will to write. They would like to get started on this now to move forward. Mr. Lee indicated that there is approximately a 2 month turn around time to get access to the $50,000 state grant funds after submitting a proposal to him.
Alan Bergren excused himself at 8:10PM to attend another meeting.
C. In-Lake Solution Concepts
Dr. Wagner stated they needed to devote 5% of the area of the water shed to storm water controls. This is about 100 acres of area devoted to storm water management, which costs about $50K per acre or $5M. He indicated that an alum dosing station for treating (removing) tributary phosphorous costs about $80K to $100K per station. Dr. Wagner stated that dredging is not practical, it’s very expensive and our problem is the watershed, not the sediments. There was a brief discussion on the phosphorus ordinance. Dr. Wagner provided his opinion of the SolarBee systems. He indicated that there are SolarBee trials going in at St. Albans Bay in Vermont on Lake Champlain and at Lake Cochichuate in Natick, Massachusetts. There was discussion on the copper sulfate treatments and the walleye stocking of the lake, and the peroxide
options for short term repairs to the lake. Dr. Wagner feels we could try copper sulfate, peroxide, and/or alum trieatments, especially in a limited area like Markham’s Bay as a trial. Chairman Hart asked if using ultra sound on a trial would be worthwhile. Dr. Wager stated it would be a benefit to experiment with on a trial period. Dr. Wagner said that we could reduce road sanding in winter in favor of salt or alcohol based materials. The state is getting away from sand use. Our town should talk with the state D.O.T. on this issue.
4. Public Remarks
Dennis Griswold asked for clarification from Dr. Wagers comment to ‘no blanket answer to East Hampton’s problem, whether it be the soil or watershed or the lake’ and there were a few other comments made that seemed to contradict that. Mr. Jordan’s comment that East Hampton soil is not conducive to runoff and that seemed more of a blanket statement. Mr. Wells commented to the algae in Lake Pocotopaug is sensitive to phosphorus, and finally Mr. Griswold asked for clarification on the contradiction statements made towards the pros and cons of wall eye stocking. Mr. Griswold closed thanking all in attendance for their time.
Dr. Wagner replied to the questions of Mr. Griswold with the following explanations. Mr. Jordan stated that the watershed soils were not conducive to infiltration they tended to produce more runoff. Runoff in this manner is not a bad thing, as the runoff is being filtered before entering the lake. Phosphorus sensitivity depends on how it is looked at. We are saying is the lake more sensitive to phosphorus in that it seems to react to phosphorus by producing more algae then in some other lakes would with the same amount of phosphorus. What was said about the algae being less sensitive to phosphorus, the particular algae that Lake Pocotopaug has seems to get a lot of phosphorus from down in the sediment base where it hatches and comes up, therefore when it gets to the top it doesn’t need as much phosphorus from the
water column to produce a lot of bio chems. If stocking the wall eye does help with the algae, however Dr. Wagner doesn’t think it will help enough with the algae problem in this particular lake.
Nancy Flannery stated she feels the biggest issue is getting the people more involved and educated who live on the water. There are currently 2061 homes in the watershed, maybe we could charge them $100 per household to start to get some people involved at the same time providing the commission with some funding to get things moving.
5. Adjournment
A motion was made by John Jordan, seconded by Jack Solomon to adjourn The Lake Pocotopaug Commission Special Meeting at 9:00 P.M. Vote 6-0, Motion passed
Respectfully Submitted, Kamey Ahrens Recording Secretary
| 
